Given the mass protests and large-scale violence and disorder that have accompanied the Coalition's plans to increase tuition fees, I am sure that many of you will already be well versed on the basics of the Coalition's proposals; increasing the basic cap for tuition fees to £6,000, and allowing universities to charge up to £9,000 per year should they satisfy criteria relating to less-privileged students.
Last week's vote passed with the most slender of majorities (21) but still represents a significant victory for the Coalition, especially in the fact of staunch opposition from the National Union of Students, the Labour Party and also a small rebellion amongst the Liberal Democrats within the Coalition.
If you know me, and have read this blog before, I am sure that you will not need me to tell you that I am wholly in support of the Coalition's proposals, am delighted that the House of Commons passed the plans and I sincerely hope that the House of Lords will, tonight, allow the Bill to pass into law.
At the same time I can, in a way, understand the opposition to the proposals; especially given the half-truths peddled by the Labour Party and the NUS (and even one Conservative MP, during the debate on the vote). If you have followed the debate in any way, you will certainly be familiar with the NUS' claims that an increase in fees will result in young people not being able to afford to go to university, and graduates who are unable to live a normal life owing to the millstone of debt around their necks, that a university education has left them with.
These arguments could not be further from the truth.
For a start, the claims that young people will not be able to afford to go to university are complete and utter balderdash. Given the fact that all tuition fees (regardless of social standing) will be covered under the existing system of student loans, not one student will have to pay any fees up front for their first BA. It was solely owing to this system that the £3,000 fees that I have to pay did not even enter into the equation when I applied to do my degree back in 2006.
Granted, students will graduate with more debt than they currently do (£27,000 compared to £9,000 based on tuition fees alone), but at the same time this is no normal debt; and it is as far removed from a bank loan as you can get.
I can think of no other loan that carries a low rate of interest, allows you to pay it back when you can afford to do so, allows you to pay it back at a very affordable rate (£900 p/a on a salary of £31,000), and is written off completely if you have not paid it all back within 30 years of graduation. Add to this the fact that this loan isn't taken into account when applying for any other finance, and you would have to concede that this loan comes on very favourable terms.
Scenes from the most recent protests/riots on Thursday 9th December, 2010
Changing tack a little, it also has to be said that this is a much fairer way of funding education than the previous system. The fact is this: the cost of a degree has not changed, merely the way in which you pay for it.
Under the previous system although students paid £3,000 p/a towards their degrees, these fees were 'topped up' to approximately £9,000 p/a by Government funding given straight to the universities. In other words for every pound paid by the students, the taxpayer paid two pounds. This meant that those who had no intention or desire to use the university system were being forced to fund it for the benefit of those who did.
The new system is much fairer in that it embraces one of the fundamental tenets of a free market society: 'if you use it, you pay for it'. In this way, the system is funded solely by those who use it. The level of funding remains the same, and universities will not lose funding because of this. The funding will just come from a different source.
I will comment on further aspects of this whole affair later in the week in a series of further posts. But in the meantime I challenge anyone to explain to me why this system is so much more unfair than the previous one.
Update (2216hrs, 14/12/2010)
The House of Lords has passed the Bill by 283 to 215, a majority of 68. The Bill will now become law.
Update (2216hrs, 14/12/2010)
The House of Lords has passed the Bill by 283 to 215, a majority of 68. The Bill will now become law.
Posts
I would argue the "YOU use it YOU pay for it" arguement is nonsense, by that arguement the NHS is a waste of money and so are benefits etc. The purpose of the wellfare state is to provide for those who cannot otherwise afford it so that in time they may contribute back to society, this could be a child who has no money to his name, a young man who cannot afford to go to university yet with that education can contribute in a much improved way to society then he would otherwise. As for the cost people in the public pay well that arguement is simple again, you pay for schools, you pay for the public services why then not pay for the proffessional education for nurses, doctors, lawyers, teachers etc. It is an investment in our future.
ReplyDeleteI grant you that the cost of higher education ahs increased since labour made it an open doors policy, now degrees are for the top 50% not just top 10%. However this bill does not address this by providing alternatives, nor does it revitalise the apprenticeship schemes, it simply is a cut which promises more for the same money.
And yes they do offer more, its been promised that these fees will result in higher contact time, more expertise and a better university experience, yet there is no more money going in so how do they justify that a change in source will automatically lead to a change of quality.
In short when we waste billions on britain trying to have a global role when in reality it is the EU which is the future of our political and military might; when we insist on a nuclear detterent: when we beleive we need two new aircraft carriers when we are currently operating without the ark royal and when we still have not made the bankers reimburse the harm they were instrumental in, why are we cutting education.
I add as the cherry on top that britain will now have the most expensive public university system, a budget on proportional par with chille and the fact we are one of the only nations cutting spending in education right now.
Why is it more unfair then the previosu one? hard to say, not that that was fair, but simply that it stinks of "we know best" goverment policy which has destroyed the nations faith in the goverment. Its not that they are always wrong, its the arrogance of not acknowledging the electorate. This policy is worse beacuse of the ugly circumstances which led to its construction.